4

nothing if not = at the very least; certainly

How does the juxtaposition of nothing + if + not produces the above definition on the right?
What semantic notions underlie and connect the left-hand and right-hand sides?
I ask not about this phrase's definition which I already understand;

1
  • (source) Shakespeare used this idiom in Othello (2:1): "I am nothing if not critical." [c. 1600] >If I am not critical (which, I am very much), then I am nothing.
    – user6951
    Jan 30, 2015 at 3:36

4 Answers 4

6

I don't think "very" is the best definition for that idiom. Collins, American Heritage and Cambridge dictionaries of idioms all define it more like more like "clearly" or "above all else."

This meaning is more easy to distill from the component parts. "[X] is nothing if not [y]" means that if [y] is not a good description of [X], then nothing could be. [Y] is the best possible description.

0
3

Phrases like "either… or", "neither… nor", "if… then… else…", "between… and… (inclusive)", and "nothing if not" explicitly use multiple different logic operators. Some of these logic operators (such as "neither", "nor", and "inclusive") are rarely used in informal speech. Similarly, informal speech rarely uses so many different logic operators in a single expression. These are hints that these logic operators are being used to express formal logic, and the meaning can be derived logically.

Here are the assumptions:

1) <X> exists.
2) <X> is nothing if not <Y>.

We seek to prove that:

3) <X> is at the very least <Y>, and
4) <X> is certainly <Y>.

The argument is fairly straight-forward:

5) Either <X> has the feature <Y>, or
6) <X> does not have the feature <Y>

7) If (6) is true, then <X> "is nothing", per (2).
8) If <X> "is nothing", then it does not exist.
9) But we have assumed that <X> exists, per (1), so neither (8), nor (7), nor (6) can be true.
10) Therefore (5) is true. We know that <X> has feature <Y>.
11) We have proved that <X> is certainly <Y>.
12) Since the assumptions state nothing else about what <X> is, or is not, we have not proved that <X> is more than <Y>, nor have we proved that <X> is <Z>.
13) We can only state with certainty that <X> is at the very least <Y>.
14) Q.E.D.

3
  • By the way, hobbs' answer is an excellent informal summary of this proof.
    – Jasper
    Jan 30, 2015 at 22:09
  • @Jasper, But doesn't "He's nothing if not charming" mean the same thing as "He's nothing except for being charming"?
    – Pacerier
    May 12, 2017 at 12:20
  • @Pacerier -- No.
    – Jasper
    May 12, 2017 at 15:11
3

It's an abbreviation of a rhetorical device. If we say "Canada is nothing if not beautiful" then we are saying "if Canada isn't beautiful, then it isn't anything at all." But it's understood that Canada does have other properties; for example, it's large and full of maple trees. So the purpose of setting up the comparison is to say that Canada is beautiful, and its beauty is as notable as, or more notable than, anything else about it.

1

In my experience, this idiom is often used to disparage. There is often an implied criticism. To say that someone is "nothing if not {X}" can mean that the person is rather too {X}, or {X} at the expense of {Y}, i.e. that the person is lacking in other qualities.

She is nothing if not thorough. (translation: She gets lost in the details).

He is nothing if not persistent. (translation: He can be a nuisance).

He is nothing if not logical. (translation: He can be wooden in his approach to things.)

He is nothing if not practical. (translation: He is relentlessly pragmatic)

He is nothing if not predictable. (translation: He is a creature of habit.)

1
  • It seems that these uses of "nothing if not" have connotations of "nothing but".
    – Jasper
    Jan 30, 2015 at 18:52

You must log in to answer this question.